green
Positive treatment
4.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
McCartney v. Ryland
See McCart *999 ney v. Louisiana, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 573 , 139 L.Ed.2d 412 (1997); McCartney v. Terral, 525 U.S. 1125 , 119 S.Ct. 910 , 142 L.Ed.2d 908 (1999); McCartney v. Cain, 537 U.S. 953 , 123 S.Ct. 420 , 154 L.Ed.2d 300 (2002); In re McCartney, 546 U.S. 809 , 126 S.Ct. 275 , 163 L.Ed.2d 281 (2005); McCartney v. McCormick, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1746 , 176 L.Ed.2d 219 , 78 USLW 3521 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Stearns
“While the right to a public trial is fundamental, it is not absolute” (People v Baker, 58 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2009] [citations omitted]; see People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 497 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1002 [1997]; People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 57 [1991]). “ ‘It has uniformly been held to be subject to the inherent power of the court to preserve order and decorum in the courtroom, to protect the rights of parties and witnesses, and generally to further the administration of justice’ ” (People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, 74 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973], quoting People v Jelke, 308 N…
cited
Cited "see"
Newman v. State
See Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608 , 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999) (citing Jones v. State, 329 Ark. 62 , 947 S.W.2d 339 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 (1997)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Allen, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2002)
A Crim.R. 29(A) motion requires the trial court to "test the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial." Neptune , supra ; accord State v. Williams (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 569 , 660 N.E.2d 724 , certiorari denied 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Grooms
See State v. Rich, 346 N.C. 50, 60-61 , 484 S.E.2d 394, 401 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 139 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Halford v. State
See Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608 , 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999) (citing Jones v. State, 329 Ark. 62 , 947 S.W.2d 339 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 (1997)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hart v. State
See State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997); Adams v. State, 412 So.2d 850 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 182 , 74 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982); Dell v. State, 661 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Purcell
A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis; see, e.g., State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715, 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S. Ct. 574 , 139 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Purcell
A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v.…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Blakeney
See State v. Richardson, 295 N.C. 309, 320 , 245 S.E.2d 754, 761-62 (1978); see also State v. Rich, 346 N.C. 50, 55-56 , 484 S.E.2d 394, 398 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 139 L.
Martinez
v.
Michigan
v.
Michigan
No. 97-6194.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 1, 1997.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.